One of this decade’s most discussed and anticipated developments, police body-mounted cameras, have been gaining more support as of late, and are subsequently becoming more widely implemented as a result of several cataclysmic events themed on police deviance and misconduct; excessive use of force, police shootings, etc. Such events as the Ferguson shooting has contributed to this up-rise and near obsession with being able to watch the watchers. Obama is in full support of this modifications to law enforcement attire and has even made a pricey contribution, yet, there are still some in power who are reluctant to follow his decision despite contemporary research evidence in support of it. These new body-mounted cameras have generated controversial discussion already with public-police relationships and further impact on both the perception and acts of police deviance.

The demand for police body-mounted cameras is a demand to install a light into a long-darkened room; to satisfy the needs of the public and criminal justice system for a definitive record when it comes to police deviance and misconduct; as objective and ominous evidence. The death of Michael Brown by Ferguson police fueled the fire for protests against police misconduct and inspired subsequent demand for video documentation of police activities. Michael Brown, who was 18 years old, was shot multiple times in the head and chest by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, despite what witnesses account for as Brown holding his hands up in surrender (Cavaliere, 2014). A campaign further supporting this was launched by Michael Brown’s parents a few months ago after another cataclysmic event, a viral video of the shooting of Cleveland 12-year old Tamir Rice, created to “ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera” (Brandom, par 2, 2014).

Announced in early December of last year, federal funding was increased when the White House pledged $263 million, $75 million of which was to be specifically used in the purchase of 50,000 new cameras (which is a lot for only covering only a fraction of employed officers in America). The additional funding will be divided up between police-community trust-oriented outreach programs, and police training that enforces instruction pertaining to the use of paramilitary equipment (Brandom, 2014). This is an addition to the six-month pilot program that the Washington D.C police began on October 1st of last year, a program that is still going on and cost $1 million initially for cameras.

There are those who are in support of this new policy, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, and then there are those who oppose them, saying that these cameras have the potential to be an invasion of privacy and may hinder the public from approaching police with information (Cavaliere, 2014). Whether in support of opposition, there have been several departments who have implemented this policy, Ferguson being one of them. When Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson discussed the addition of body-mounted cameras to his team, he mentioned that the receiving officers were without reluctance in that they “are really enjoying them,” and that “they are trying to get used to using them” (Cavaliere, par 8, 2014). Of course, not everyone is in support of this legislation. In fact, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh is adamantly opposed to the use of body cameras for his police officers. Walsh is quoted in an interview stating, “No. I don’t think it’s needed in Boston today. It’s a tool that people are talking about. There’s an experiment going on in Worcester right now…with body cameras. That’s something that we’ll see what shows with that experiment” (Enwemeka, par 7, 2014). Walsh further comments that he does not believe that the cameras will assist in mending the fundamental issues between the communities and the police (Enwemeka, 2014). Marty Walsh’s statements implied that he is reluctant for body cameras at this time, but that this future decision may rely on the success of the cameras in neighboring departments.And that is essentially what these attire additions are right now; they’re experiments, trial runs. If the benefits outweigh the costs, body cameras have the potential to become mandatory.

There have been legitimate experiments conducted measuring the effectiveness of body cameras and officers as well, such as a yearlong study completed by Chief Tony Farrar of Rialto California Police Department’s patrol officers. “We randomly assigned a year’s worth of shifts into experimental and control shifts within a large randomized controlled field experiment…we investigated the extent to which cameras effect human behavior and, specifically, reduce the use of police force” (The Police Foundation, p. 2, 2013). The results of this 12 month study showed the patrol shifts not using cameras came into twice as many use of force incidents than the shifts with officers wearing the cameras. As for public complaints against officers, in the 12 month period during the study there were only three complaints filed, as opposed to the 28 complaints filed in the 12 months proceeding the study (The Police Foundation, 2013). “The findings suggest more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use of force compared to control conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens’ complaints in the 12 months prior to the experiment (The Police Foundation, p. 9, 2013). This study illustrated a significant effect on both use of force and public complaints against officers. This may be a foreshadow of the kind of results to come from wider implementation. There is some skepticism raised around the issues of privacy, as Cheryl Distaso asserts regarding the potential body camera addition to the Fort Collins Police Department. Distaso, with the Fort Collins Community Acton Network, addresses public concern stating “police officers might be able to turn them off when their behavior is questionable…[and] police officers enter people’s homes. They enter their personal space. And there is no way to opt out (CBS, par 8-11, 2013). Distaso also added, among issues of invasion of privacy, that it’s a general concern that the policy pertaining to the cameras was designed without the public’s input. This raises red flags for some citizens. Goldsmith (2010) argues that there are negative impacts upon the department and law enforcement deploying these cameras as well, as it produces a new visibility into their conduct. “Their uncontrolled visibility diminishes their power, making the surveillance of others less possible at times and exposing them to disciplinary and legal liability. Visibility of less flattering or illegal practices challenges their operation sovereignty based in anonymity and observation (Goldsmith, p. 915, 2010). He goes on to say that their have been negative consequences for police organizations due to the new communicative technologies and their social networking, and that, although these new technologies may increase the public’s perception of police accountability, it proportionally decreases their account ability (Goldsmith, 2010).

Despite the issues around skepticism about officer body camera use, there are bigger and more serous issues around police use of force and community and police trust and accountability. More serious issues that, according to Chief Tony Farrar’s study, these sorts of recording devices seem to heavily impact. As more research is conducted on more departments experimenting with this tool, we’ll have more information that will assist in whichever direction we decide to go with body mounted cameras. If there are certain areas and communities that have a real problem with use of force and with community-law enforcement relationships, based on what evidence has been concluded so far, the benefits would outweigh the costs when pertaining to whether or not police should wear body mounted cameras.

Prominent Functionaries, also known as, PROFUNC was a national security initiative that lasted over 30 years (1950 -1983). The plan was to spy on and intern suspected communists along with their sympathizers. The RCMP would go as far as going undercover and pretending to be friends with some of the suspected communists to gain intelligence. The state essentially perceived some Canadians as a national threat just for being associated with someone having certain political beliefs which is actually completely legal. The RCMP targeted anybody with party membership, family connections or associations that suggested sympathy with communist Canadians. Jimmy Laxer, son of Robert Laxer was drawn up in this documentary as an example of a child who suffered due to his parents beliefs. Jimmy Laxer reported that he felt like he was being watched as a child because of his family. One can only imagine the effects this anxiety could have on a child. The fact that this was going on with approval from the Canadian government and without anybody knowing about it really made me think about the kinds of things that could be going on today. How could something of this nature be approved by our government? I find it interesting that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into law one year before PROFUNC ended.

The police deviance in PROFUNC can be understood with the help of Maurice Punch. PROFUNC would be a typology of deviance referred to as “system failure with a societal impact” (Punch, 2009). The Government of Canada approved this program, therefore making it an issue of the state. The implications of this decision causes Canadians today to think twice about just how much trust they put into our police officers and government. PROFUNC is representative an example of police deviance as it captures how the state can allow and approve corrupt practices such as spying and interning on a societal scale. PROFUNC, an externally driven form of corruption conveys state domination as the police that are linked to state or local politicians following orders and carrying out the state or local politician’s illicit aims (Punch, 2009). In this case, spying on anybody associated with left wing communist Canadians. The RCMP must act on the states illicit aims, more specifically communism. This helps us understand how PROFUNC would be a system failure. It’s important to note that Intelligence does not necessarily have to be 100 percent true. An assumption can be considered intelligence; however the RCMP does have to act with complete discretion and is not supposed to act on assumptions. The case of Maher Arar illustrates how minor assumptions can have serious consequences. Maher Arar was caught speaking to a terrorist of Muslim decent and was arrested and sent to Syria, where he was tortured for one year.

This biggest thing to understand about PROFUNC is that the federal government approved it. This factor greatly magnifies the significance of this program. When thinking about people like Jimmy Laxer who suffered anxiety as a child due to his parents believe I can’t help but feel empathetic. Canada prides itself as a nation of freedom and equality, are the beliefs of communist Canadians really more important than upholding the standards Canada claims to have?

I propose to conduct an in depth study into the nature and prevalence of “Police Brutality” in BC. Police brutality can be defined as any amount of force, whether that is physical or verbal, in excess of what is required to obtain a resolution in the performance of a police officer’s duties. This phenomenon is becoming increasingly visible in media and social networking due to the expansion of video technology, thus increasing the importance and value of an investment into such a study. The video below is a recent and very popular insight into police brutality in Kelowna, BC, and demonstrates the need for more empirical data.

Multiple groups have made it their personal mission to monitor and publicize police actions in an effort to promote accountability, such as this one.

I propose using simple diversified surveys, individual interviews, and departmental statistics to compile a comprehensive overview of British Columbia’s police use of force. By encapsulating the ‘best of both worlds,’ this study would be able to provide the information necessary for change. One of the issues with currently available studies is the lack of variety in the focus group. Studies such as “Police Ethics and Integrity: Breaking the Blue Code of Silence” (Westmarland, 2005), provide insight into the police perceptions of brutality but does nothing for the public perception. This study also relied heavily on the voluntary involvement of officers. My program of research will cover every possible point of reference to provide the clearest insight into police abuse of authority. I will include every level of socio-economics in a given community by administering the survey in these areas. I believe conducting surveys in a fixed location limits the representation of other socio-economic groups that may have very different interpretations and experiences with the police and their use of force. Also, the success rate of surveys answered would be far greater by going door to door in communities rather than in public centres such as a mall, where individuals may be in a ‘rush’ to complete their errands. By going door to door, the community will have a greater feeling of respect and appreciation, for someone is taking the time to hear what they have to say. Also, having these surveys in multiple languages will allow for ethnic groups, who may not participate in the public centres, an opportunity to share their perspective and input, and thus, more effectively represent the multi-cultural society policed. The survey will comprise of between 5 to 10 questions that should take less than 2 minutes to complete, unless, the individual chooses to spend more time elaborating. Some essential questions would be:

1) How would you define Police Brutality?

2) How many times have you witnessed/ experiencedPolice Brutality?

3) What events led to the level of force used?

4) Did you report the event?

5) How confident are you of the police? 1 (not at all) to 5 (very)

When it comes to the application of the survey to police officers, I propose to create a relationship with the police department administration that would convince them that it is in their best interest to assist in the survey by instructing all officers to participate. Every survey would remain anonymous in hopes of obtaining factual information. By doing this, the ‘voluntary’ aspect is removed, and the opportunity of gaining a greater volume of surveys is increased dramatically. Among the essential questions would be question 1 through 4 of the citizen questionnaire, obviously, directed towards the officer’s personal involvement in the event. Also, questions pertaining to the reasoning behind the actions in question and how the officer responded themselves.

In conclusion, this proposed study is a simple, yet effective initiative to discover the nature and prevalence of police brutality in BC. No other study has been conducted that covers the wide variety of sources as this study proposes. Once the surveys have been analyzed, more focused interview questions can be formed to gain a greater understanding of the causes of police brutality. In order for the public to build a relationship of trust with the police, and the police with the public, these studies must be considered. For it is because of studies like this, that treat individuals as valued citizens, that promote the successful change needed to regain the prestige of our police and country.

One contemporary example of police corruption comes all the way from Zimbabwe. Two police officers, Pearson Manwell and Kudakwahe Bere, were arrested for making a negotiation with drug dealers. A gang of drug dealers were transporting 2400 kg of mbanje (marijuana) worth 240,000 US dollars. The police officers had caught the drug dealers and then asked for 30,000 US dollars.

I think it would be best to begin dissecting the two officers from the broadest of the three typologies, the third typology. The third typology is based on levels of police deviance; the levels expand all the way from the system failure of the entire institution to corruption within the police domain. In this case the corruption is from within the police domain as it involves only the two police officers. Manwell and Bere would be classified as conventional corrupt police officers. Conventional corruption is a more serious form of corrupt practices such as the bribery used in this case.

To break this down further we can look at the first of the three typologies. According to the typology of officers, these two police officers are considered to be meat-eaters. Based on the Knapp Commission Testimony, meat-eaters are the type of people who make arrangements with criminals for personal gain. 30,000 US dollars is quite large amount money. Considering that the officers were capable of carrying out a deviant act of this magnitude it would be safe to assume that this is not the first time these officers have been involved in corrupt and deviant activities. This may be a result of a corrupt police department where these officers were told that this was the “operational code” of the department as these officers were brought to justice by forces outside of the department. This assumption cannot be confirmed without further evidence and investigation however it is one way we could attempt to understand the situation.

Based on the typology of practices, shakedowns clearly define what these corrupted police officers did. According to Barker and Roebuck, shakedowns are when a person gains from not following through on a criminal violation like an arrest. These officers were asking for 30000 US in exchange for letting the drug dealers go without penalty. The two were simply looking for a bribe in exchange for turning a blind eye. This is the most classic example of a shakedown, bribery which is such a blunt form of corruption is one of the first things that comes to mind when asked for examples of corruption. After identifying what the officers have done, the question quickly becomes why?

When considering why the police officers did what they did many people can come up with many different explanations for what took place. Aside from the obvious financial incentive why did the officers act in such a way? Sociologically speaking it could have been a number of things happening. Bere could have been in some financial trouble and due to the wages with policing he could not make ends meet which is why he purposed the bribery. Manwell could have been hesitant at the time considering that the fact that a split of 30,000 didn’t sound all that bad for letting people go just one time and when Bere took the lead he just went with what was going on. This is just one way we could look at this rather than the latter which would probably be that both officers are corrupt and evil and have always been that way and will always be that way regardless of the circumstances.

As I read the assignment guidelines, I figured it would be extremely difficult to find a recent case of police corruption. Contrary to my belief, the first search I entered into Google brought me to the case of an Edmonton police officer named Derek Whitson. Whitson, a seven-year veteran, is currently being charged with four charges including deceit and corruption for interfering with documents in his brother, Joell Whitson’s, drunk driving case.

Corruption can be described as the abuse of authority, oath of office, and suspects and citizens. Immediately, it is clear that the category of corruption Whitson has committed is “Flaking and Padding.” This involves manipulating files or evidence for personal gain and could also include adding to evidence to increase the penalty an individual receives. In this particular case, it is clear that Derek Whitson was attempting to minimize the level of impairment of his brother in the notes in the hopes that he received a lesser charge or even acquittal. Derek Whitson has also used his authority in a corruptive manner, another one of the typologies discussed in “Police Corruption” by Maurice Punch.

Typology 3 involves the level of police deviance and corruption committed by an individual. Because an internal complaint from within his unit was received, it is evident that this is not a system failure which involves an entire organization in crisis; however, the corruption does occur within the police domain. This involves police interfering with the administration of justice. When the original officer on scene was taking notes, he was administering justice. By tampering with notes about the severity of Joell’s intoxication level, Derek knew that his brother would either be acquitted of receive a lesser charge.

In typology 1, we are introduced to the various forms typologies for officers. Among these are two that fit particularly well with this case, the first being “meat-eaters.” A meat-eater is someone who participates in illegal activity and abuses their power for self-gain. Although manipulating notes is not directly benefitting Derek, I’m sure he would slightly benefit from the fact that his brother no longer needs to serve time or pay large fines. The second typology is an “innovator and number-cruncher.” These are individuals who look for loopholes and technicalities. Having a brother who is able to tamper with records is quite the loophole is you ask me.

The various typologies are quite confusing at first glance. When I first searched for classes to join, I had no clue this one was being offered. What was most shocking to me was that the problem of police deviance is becoming a colossal problem not only in third world countries but countries like Canada. Realizing a problem like police corruption is large enough to have a whole class dedicated to it highlights how drastically this, once small, problem is growing. As human beings, we are instinctively required to look out for others, especially loved ones. In this particular case, one man was willing to put his job on the line to protect his brother. But where do we draw the line? How far are we willing to go to help others?

There are several variables that influence how the police – and specifically the RCMP – view complaints. The major contributors are the dichotomy followed by police culture, the origins of the RCMP, their reputation and how the police deal with ‘rats’ internally. The changes in a post-9/11 environment indicate a high-policing atmosphere. In a perfect imagining the oversight and the compliant mechanisms are meant to be staffed by external police bodies. Staffed by civilians who make recommendations to better policing practices and accountability for the agency. But due to constraints of power and the fact that many such bodies are staffed by retired police officers this ideal is slow to realize.

There is distinct dichotomy between the public and the police. The Us vs. Them argument has been used to explain the isolation and the divide felt between the public and the police. The argument states that those outside of your social group are unable to relate to what your social group faces and/or experiences. Some factors that may help with this are irregular hours, sometimes impossible demands, high stress and extremely dangerous situation. This is reflective of Barker and Carter’s definition of police corruption, which is the “latent result of society’s attempt to execute unenforceable ‘victimless’ crime laws” (46). This has helped the police to foster negative mind set towards the oversight commissions and are intentionally subverted by the police; through intimidation, non-compliance, bias and questioning their message. When a complaint is issued, the investigation that follows puts undue pressure towards the complainant by placing them on trial and “reprehensible tactics to discourage citizens from filing complaints against.” [Barker and Carter 378]. The complaints form of the RCMP is more interested in the complainant then the event. This is reflective of the dichotomy argument. Non-compliance is shown as an unwillingness to comply with summons from these committees and by not heeding or implementing their recommendations. One consequence of the committees is their lack of power [Goldsmith and Lewis], although a few can make recommendations but the police agencies do not have to heed their advice. Bias was evident in how the police did not give these committees credence because they were not on ‘the job’. Also they have been frequently criticized for disregarding the interests of the complaints. The police often question the message of the committees. They claim that the community want someone to blame, scape-goats and fulfills the communities need for vengeance. It is important to mention the Nolan principals which emphasizes trustworthiness and accountability but this example is applied across the pond in the UK [Punch 2009].

Critics have many theories as to the cause of police deviance. One cause may be because of police [sub]culture, especially when use in concert with the dichotomy. Police [sub]culture is known to be stable over geography and time. Meaning that it is found elsewhere in the world at varying periods in time. As a result of the dichotomy the police fully socialize only within their group. Leaving them unable to socialize with those outside their group or even to be able to empathize with them. As a result, when socializing with outsiders causes suspicion, by the nature of the this provides positive feedback on said suspicions. This also feeds into the blue wall of silence that further helps to isolate peace officers from society, in that when they feel that society or others from outside their societal group have have unfairly judged them they effectively close ranks. Presenting an unformed front both externally and internally. Other peace officers sympathize and empathize with those involved. Through this isolation many officers begin to feel and treat the non-police identity [encapsulating those who are not part of the police force]. This is shown in how they refer to using a highly masculine and sometimes racist vernacular that permeate and is pertuated by the police culture. The police canteen culture also feeds into this. John Van Maanen describes how those who do not yield the instructions from the police are viewed with hostility and labeled as an Asshole.

It appears that the commissions, inquires and other complaint mechanisms are like the police, reactive to crime. As Punch states, the deviance is built into the system. Even with complete clean out of deviant characters the deviance will still be learned by other recruit. This means that there is some mechanism within the organization of policing that allows for this to grow. The oversight and inquires are rendered null by their lack of power and by the police under the blue wall of silence protecting their officers from prosecutions. This may be to protect their reputation or public image. But as Barker and Carter quote from the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice: these oversight committees are symptomatic of a larger problem of the lack of public confidence. Punch states that police are presented “with an inherent dilemma in relation to performing their task and enforcing the law in a context of rules, resources and laws that restrict them in some way” [2].

Sperico came forward to address the issue of his compatriots in “grass-eating” and “meat-eating”. This type of terminology came up at the Knapp Commission. Grass-eating refers to a sporadic deviance, that does not actively engage in deviant behavior. These opportunities can be receiving free or oppertunties discounted food stuffs based on their occupation of an officer. Where as meat-eaters were constantly involved within the criminal elements. The types of deviance elaborated on in this commission where, the padding of evidence to either convict a desired suspect and/or to increase their sentence. Because he went outside his ‘brothers in blue’ he was viewed as a traitor, one that could expose the deviant structure and place them all in jail. This was particularly worrisome because police officers do not survive long in jail. This is because of retaliation for other inmates and dominance/territorial disputes. Also like any social code, there are rules to follow. He broke the rules, an example had to be made to be shown to others who wanted to tell. Sperico was left with no back-up when raiding a drug-dealer which resulted in a gun-shot wound to the face. This incident is relevant because without confidence in the police who will follow their orders? Who will come to them with problems or sensitive information? As explored in the paragraph before, reputation is everything. Without it the police are powerless. With no merit in their symbols of their authority [squad car, uniform, issued commands, etc.] no one would heed their commands.

There seems to be a troubling occurrence that has been since the 9/11 occurrences. Information sharing, joint operations across the nation, the Anti-Terrorism Act and high policing are just a few significant occurrences. Information sharing although not outright adverse, in some practices it becomes draconian. Maher Arar, for example, spent almost a year being tortured in Syria because of information provided to the US from the RCMP. This type of sharing is manipulation of the system. Project A-O is where Canada kept a list of names of whom they viewed where a security risk. Surveillance was intensified around them. For joint operations, there is the G20 which was the largest collaboration of security personnel. It is difficult to ensure accountability because of so many participants. Was it the RCMP, who were managing the security, when the Ontario Provincial Police actually did the commission of the crime? After the US enacted the Patriate Act post-9/11 Canada mirrored it with the Anti-Terrorism Act with made terrorism criminal and within the realm of the police. This act was mainly to placate the US and grant the RCMP more security powers, which where lost when CSIS was created. The US is a major trading partner of Canada [Diab 2008]. High-policing is a form of policing [though not necessarily conducted by the police] in which the agenda of the government is carried out and the letter of the law is blurred. For instance, Security Certificate. This certificate allows the government to detain a ‘suspect’ without arrest or trial and ultimately deport them. If the ‘suspect’ held refugee status, they could be deported back to their fled country where their lives would cease [Larsen, October 27, 2011, personal communication].

Essentially the accountability structure did not expand as the police powers did. And any outside views is seen with distain and hostility with movements made hid evidence and particpation of other agencies or people within their own forces. The RCMP has essentially operated as it has been since 1919. Recovering their security responsibilities through the Anti-Terrorism Act.